Efficiency of Solar vs Coal Power

[longknife]

By Jack Dini

The Cardinal Mine in western Kentucky is among the most productive underground coal mines in the United states. It’s the thirty-fifth largest in American and produces about 6 tons of coal per miner work-hour.

That’s about two times the national average of underground coal mines. On an average day, by itself, the Cardinal Mine, which has about 400 people on its payroll, produces about 75 percent as much raw energy as all of the solar panels and wind turbines in the United States, reports Robert Bryce. (1)

Yet, according to Grist, solar power workers now outnumber coal miners nationwide. (2)

Solar (and wind) have been big cash cows. In the time frame 2009 to 2011 the Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic ‘stimulus’ funds to solar and wind projects that created, as the end result, 910 ‘direct jobs’—annual operation and maintenance positions—meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs. (3)

Read more @ Efficiency of Solar vs Coal Power

After reading this, it's clear the good old “smoky” way is far less expensive than the new, untried “clean” way. But, the administration keeps pushing ways that don't work as well and will cost US more!

 

[Old Rocks]

The 'good?' old smokey is cheaper if one does not factor in the cost of asthma and the many other ailment created by the pollution of burning coal.

Another point. You state that there are more people working on solar in the US than there is mining coal. OK, now how to these people working on solar compare in wages to those working on coal? And where is the differance of the money going, and to whom?

 

[hoosier88]

By Jack Dini

The Cardinal Mine in western Kentucky is among the most productive underground coal mines in the United states. It’s the thirty-fifth largest in American and produces about 6 tons of coal per miner work-hour.

That’s about two times the national average of underground coal mines. On an average day, by itself, the Cardinal Mine, which has about 400 people on its payroll, produces about 75 percent as much raw energy as all of the solar panels and wind turbines in the United States, reports Robert Bryce. (1)

Yet, according to Grist, solar power workers now outnumber coal miners nationwide. (2)

Solar (and wind) have been big cash cows. In the time frame 2009 to 2011 the Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic ‘stimulus’ funds to solar and wind projects that created, as the end result, 910 ‘direct jobs’—annual operation and maintenance positions—meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs. (3)

Read more @ Efficiency of Solar vs Coal Power

After reading this, it's clear the good old “smoky” way is far less expensive than the new, untried “clean” way. But, the administration keeps pushing ways that don't work as well and will cost US more!

(My bold)

Burning coal is just another way to capture the sun's energy - the coal was plant material, long ago, that was put under heat & pressure. Over time, that plant material became peat, then soft coal. Solar & wind are also ways to capture the sun's energy, solar is more direct. Wind depends on thermal effects of sunlight upon the Earth's atmosphere. Costs for solar are coming down, as the technology improves. Wind costs are also coming down, again for the same reason.

Coal mining costs will go up - because the coal that's easy to mine or strip has already been mined. Increasingly, more technology (more capital costs) will be required to mine & transport to the surface deeper coal seams. (Much like tar sand or shale oil - the material has to be heated & injected with chemicals to make the material flow, & it requires more water & energy inputs to produce a product that can be used.)

Long-tem, solar & wind costs are fairly fixed & can be planned for. The costs for underground coal mining will simply go up - & that's not counting water issues, environmental degradation issues, health impacts to miners & their communities, land reclamation, managing earth removed from the mines. Eastern coal is in a bind - it burns @ lower temperatures, which means not as cleanly as anthracite (western coal), which makes it less desirable for industrial uses - especially generating electricity.

Fracking has overproduced natural gas, which is easier to transport through existing pipelines, burns cleamer than coal, & is especially useful for gas-turbine generators, which can be ramped up & down as peak electrical demand surges & falls. As long as we have cheap abundant natural gas, soft coal will be in trouble.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm puzzled why the feds bailed out of Future Gen. Then they went to "Future Gen 2.0".
Now that project's status is uncertain.

Near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plants are viable, yet tens of millions are wasted on failed solar endeavors. This country must embrace coal and pursue such projects.

After all, isn't coal a part of Obama's "all of the above" approach to energy policy?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm puzzled why the feds bailed out of Future Gen. Then they went to "Future Gen 2.0".
Now that project's status is uncertain.

Near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plants are viable, yet tens of millions are wasted on failed solar endeavors. This country must embrace coal and pursue such projects.

After all, isn't coal a part of Obama's "all of the above" approach to energy policy?

The near zero coal fired plants have an ROEI about the same as solar. And there really is no gaurantee that the formations that they pump the CO2 down into will hold that CO2 indefinately.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm puzzled why the feds bailed out of Future Gen. Then they went to "Future Gen 2.0".
Now that project's status is uncertain.

Near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plants are viable, yet tens of millions are wasted on failed solar endeavors. This country must embrace coal and pursue such projects.

After all, isn't coal a part of Obama's "all of the above" approach to energy policy?

The near zero coal fired plants have an ROEI about the same as solar. And there really is no gaurantee that the formations that they pump the CO2 down into will hold that CO2 indefinately.

There are nearly 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in underground storage scattered around the U.S.

Would Co2 storage be any different?

 

[bripat9643]

The 'good?' old smokey is cheaper if one does not factor in the cost of asthma and the many other ailment created by the pollution of burning coal.

Really? Can you produce one actual verifiable diagnosis of "asthma aggravated by coal pollution" to support that claim?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm puzzled why the feds bailed out of Future Gen. Then they went to "Future Gen 2.0".
Now that project's status is uncertain.

Near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plants are viable, yet tens of millions are wasted on failed solar endeavors. This country must embrace coal and pursue such projects.

After all, isn't coal a part of Obama's "all of the above" approach to energy policy?

The near zero coal fired plants have an ROEI about the same as solar. And there really is no gaurantee that the formations that they pump the CO2 down into will hold that CO2 indefinately.

Only an imbecile would wasnt to build an ROEI coal fired power plant. CO2 isn't pollution, so it's idiotic to spend money trying to elminiate it.

Compare current state-of-the-art coal plants to solar. The former blows away the later. In fact, you can't even build the later without a backup source of power.

 

[Old Rocks]

The 'good?' old smokey is cheaper if one does not factor in the cost of asthma and the many other ailment created by the pollution of burning coal.

Really? Can you produce one actual verifiable diagnosis of "asthma aggravated by coal pollution" to support that claim?

Toxic Air Report - American Lung Association

The American Lung Association’s report Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from coal-burning power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the health harm associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new standard, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, to cleanup this toxic pollution. The Lung Association is working to make sure that the some members of Congress and polluters don’t block the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard.

Burning: Smog, Soot, and Asthma | Beyond Coal

In the United States, more than 40 percent of people live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution. Pollution from coal-fired power plants leads to smog (or ozone), a toxic compound and a dangerous irritant. Doctors liken inhaling smog to getting a sunburn on your lungs. It can cause chest pain, coughing, and breathing difficulties. It triggers asthma attacks, and it can lead to irreversible lung damage or even death. Smog exacerbates conditions like bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma—sometimes fatally.

Coal is Dirty | Ask Dr. Coal

How do emissions from coal-fired power plants impact air quality and respiratory health?

According to the American Lung Association, 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.

Asthma is the leading chronic illness among children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), asthma accounts for 14 million lost days of school missed annually, and asthma is the third-ranking cause of hospitalization among children younger than 15 years of age.

So here we go with that play straight out of the tobacco industries playbook. "Show me one case of lung cancer that can be proven to be caused by smoking". Sorry, Pattycake, but that old saw ain't gonna play.

 

[Mr. H.]

El Rocko, if we are able to store in sub-surface geologic formations nearly 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas doesn't it stand to reason that we can also store C02 in similar fashion?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm puzzled why the feds bailed out of Future Gen. Then they went to "Future Gen 2.0".
Now that project's status is uncertain.

Near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plants are viable, yet tens of millions are wasted on failed solar endeavors. This country must embrace coal and pursue such projects.

After all, isn't coal a part of Obama's "all of the above" approach to energy policy?

The near zero coal fired plants have an ROEI about the same as solar. And there really is no gaurantee that the formations that they pump the CO2 down into will hold that CO2 indefinately.

Only an imbecile would wasnt to build an ROEI coal fired power plant. CO2 isn't pollution, so it's idiotic to spend money trying to elminiate it.

Compare current state-of-the-art coal plants to solar. The former blows away the later. In fact, you can't even build the later without a backup source of power.

Speaking of idiots, perhaps you should look up what EROEI means. You might want to start with last months Scientific American. Here is an article even more in depth, although not as current;

The Oil Drum | Why EROI Matters (Part 1 of 6)

 

[Old Rocks]

El Rocko, if we are able to store in sub-surface geologic formations nearly 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas doesn't it stand to reason that we can also store C02 in similar fashion?

Atomic weight of Carbon = 12 Atomic weight of Oxygen = 16

for every 12 pounds of carbon burned you produce 44 pounds of CO2.

We burn about 1 billion tonnes of coal a year. That produces about 3 1/2 billion tonnes of CO2. There 8.7 scf in one pound of CO2. A ton is 2 x 10^3. 3.5 billion tonnes is 3.5 X 10^9. So we produce 7 x 10^12 scf of CO2 per year. That is 7 trillion cubic feet. In one year. And, unlike the CH4, we are not planning on taking any out. I think that we would run out of suitable formations rather quickly.

 

[Mr. H.]

El Rocko, if we are able to store in sub-surface geologic formations nearly 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas doesn't it stand to reason that we can also store C02 in similar fashion?

Atomic weight of Carbon = 12 Atomic weight of Oxygen = 16

for every 12 pounds of carbon burned you produce 44 pounds of CO2.

We burn about 1 billion tonnes of coal a year. That produces about 3 1/2 billion tonnes of CO2. There 8.7 scf in one pound of CO2. A ton is 2 x 10^3. 3.5 billion tonnes is 3.5 X 10^9. So we produce 7 x 10^12 scf of CO2 per year. That is 7 trillion cubic feet. In one year. And, unlike the CH4, we are not planning on taking any out. I think that we would run out of suitable formations rather quickly.

Thank you, Dr. Science.

Seriously yes, that makes sense.

But should that in itself prevent us from pursuing such projects? Even one single project such as Future Gen? Or Future Gen 2.0?
It's a pity the first-proposed version fell apart. It would have been built nearby.

Anyhow- From this link it appears the DOE gives much credibility to clean coal tech:

DOE - Fossil Energy: Clean Coal Technology

Hydrocarbons simply kick ass and don't deserve the neg rep heaped upon it by the Liberal-Enviro-Crackpot sector.

 

[bripat9643]

The 'good?' old smokey is cheaper if one does not factor in the cost of asthma and the many other ailment created by the pollution of burning coal.

Really? Can you produce one actual verifiable diagnosis of "asthma aggravated by coal pollution" to support that claim?

Toxic Air Report - American Lung Association

The American Lung Association’s report Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from coal-burning power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the health harm associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new standard, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, to cleanup this toxic pollution. The Lung Association is working to make sure that the some members of Congress and polluters don’t block the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard.

The EPA paid the ALA $40 million in 2012. The ALA is nothing but a paid propaganda organization. Furthermore, it's report does not document a single case of lung illness resulting from coal emissions. The ALA extrapolates illness based on illness from high levels of exposure. This methodology has never been proven, and it's obviously suspect. High levels of water intake can kill you, but that doesn't prove low levels of intake are toxic.

Burning: Smog, Soot, and Asthma | Beyond Coal

In the United States, more than 40 percent of people live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution. Pollution from coal-fired power plants leads to smog (or ozone), a toxic compound and a dangerous irritant. Doctors liken inhaling smog to getting a sunburn on your lungs. It can cause chest pain, coughing, and breathing difficulties. It triggers asthma attacks, and it can lead to irreversible lung damage or even death. Smog exacerbates conditions like bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma—sometimes fatally.

Again, a lot of theorizing, but no actual documented cases of illness caused by coal fired power plants.

Coal is Dirty | Ask Dr. Coal

How do emissions from coal-fired power plants impact air quality and respiratory health?

According to the American Lung Association, 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.

Again, you quote your EPA stooge propaganda organization. The ALA has no evidence of any kind that coal pollution caused any heart attacks, hospital emissions or asthma attacks. It extrapolates from studies of exposure to high levels of contaminates. There is no documented causality between low levels of exposure and illness. None. There isn't a shred of credible evidence for the ALA's claims.

Asthma is the leading chronic illness among children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), asthma accounts for 14 million lost days of school missed annually, and asthma is the third-ranking cause of hospitalization among children younger than 15 years of age.

Your heart breaks for the poor little tykes, doesn't it? However, there isn't a shred of evidence indicating that emissions from coal fired power plants accounted for a single lost day of school or hospitalization.

So here we go with that play straight out of the tobacco industries playbook. "Show me one case of lung cancer that can be proven to be caused by smoking". Sorry, Pattycake, but that old saw ain't gonna play.

There was massive statistical evidence showing a correlation between smoking and various illness. That isn't the case with coal fired power plant emissions. incidence of asthma and heart attack show no correlation with living near a power plant. None.

If you think there is, then you should have no trouble producing it. All you have produced here is EPA propaganda.

 

[Mr. H.]

I just done sawed on the tv news that the government spends $15 billion a year administering various wind energy programs.

 

[Politico]

Solar I don't have to rely on someone else. Coal I do. Case closed.

 

[RGR]

Speaking of idiots, perhaps you should look up what EROEI means. You might want to start with last months Scientific American. Here is an article even more in depth, although not as current;

The Oil Drum | Why EROI Matters (Part 1 of 6)

Psycho babble nonsense from those without a clue. Referencing the oil drum is like asking a Nazi about Jews, sure they have an answer, you already know what it is, and they will lie until the day they die about it.